Clemency only for brutal criminals?

A passionate debate has been triggered online following TOI's report on June 22 about the President granting clemency to a record 35 convicts, with netizens arguing for and against capital punishment.

NEW DELHI: A passionate debate has been triggered online following TOI's report on June 22 about the President granting clemency to a record 35 convicts, with netizens arguing for and against capital punishment.

President Pratibha Patil's mercy "overkill", as some described it, led many netizens to ask if the head of the state had applied her mind to the crimes each of the 35 accused had committed. Especially since many pulled out of death row following presidential intervention had been found guilty of committing heinous crimes such as mass murders, kidnappings, rape, brutalizing and killing children.

Many insisted that they'd much rather see criminals who killed children and murdered entire families hang. Says Vijju from Bangalore, "What right do they even have to clemency after such heinous crimes — raping children and killing them. I feel sad for the relatives of those victims."

Mumbai's Vishal Gadre reasons: "The Constitution of India gives this right (to pardon) to the President. But use it for national interest. A right is a responsibility not a privilege."

Many believe the pardons were rapid-fire, perhaps done in haste and without the due diligence such decisions must be subjected to. The speed factor, they say, is open to discussion. N Sharath elaborates his concern thus: "There's need to review the (President's) discretionary power, the lack of procedure. There's a strong need to lay out reasons in public for using the power." The question seems to niggle many primarily because of the nature of people who were spared the noose.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those such as Nikhila Sethi, who laud the President for doing what several of her predecessors studiously avoided doing. "Whatever her decision, she has done well to at least dispose of long-pending cases. Those who sat for years on people's lives can certainly not be called good fellows," Nikhila says. And with reason, especially since former Presidents such as A P J Abdul Kalam, K R Narayanan and S D Sharma did little to address clemency pleas. "The story (TOI's June 22 report) should have been stronger on those who sat like lords on pleas for a decade or more," an anonymous netizen pointedly says.

Adding to the debate, some have hammered home the need for transparency. Factors that weigh on the President's mind when he or she decides on a plea must be spelt out in the public domain. Responding to the TOI story, a netizen says: "The home ministry advises the President on decisions officially while conveying the plea. When we talk of the disposal rate, it would be interesting to know if the home ministry had advised against or in favour of clemency in all these cases."

Some recalled last year's events, when the same President rejected the mercy pleas of two political killers — of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh. There was a surge of public sympathy following her rejection of these petitions.

Interestingly, there was a third person whose case came up along with the Beant and Rajiv killers. This was that of M N Das, an Assamese sentenced to death for a double-murder. For some strange reason, his plea was rejected. Yet, among the 35 pardoned are convicts who have committed far heinous or equally serious crimes. What is the political message here? No mercy for political killers, but clemency to brutal criminals? What are the politics of clemency?